So...What's wrong with the R5?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 16,888
Re: Are you sure about that?

sportyaccordy wrote:

J A C S wrote:

jonpais wrote:

High resolution 8K video actually appears smoother, softer, and more natural - not clinically sharper, than lower resolution images. I saw this for myself when grading 8K footage from the Canon last night.

Marketing would have people believe it’s all about ‘sharpness’, where in fact, when viewed from a distance, people often mistakenly believe lower res material is sharper. hehe

Higher res also means greater color information.

These qualities are all scalable, meaning they are observable whether seen in 4K, 2K or HD. I’ve watched a lot of videos on this phenomenon and observed the same thing.

Many episodes of the Netflix hit Better Call Saul were shot with an 8K camera.

Because 8K has 4X the number of pixels of 4K it allows tremendous flexibility in post: cropping, zooms, pans and stabilization.

Whether anyone actually needs it or not is debatable.

I am not saying that it is not better. The question was - what makes everybody think that pros really need it? Most customers will view their photos and videos on tablets or phones anyway. Most of them would not be able to tell 2K from 4K, forget about 8K that they cannot view or higher quality 4K downscaled from 8K. After all, many pros shoot with 20mp flagship cams and take videos with smaller format cams.

But frivolous debates about 8K aside, having dual pixel AF II in all modes with 100% coverage, 8 stops of image stabilization, C-log 4:2:2 10-bit internal and 4K 120p all in a body whose ergonomics are second to none in the mirrorless world (cf. enormous S1H or ridiculously tiny Sigma fp!) are definitely tools anyone would like in their arsenal.

I am not sure what DP AF II is, and 100% coverage is interesting theoretically but I do not think that I will ever need it. The rest is lost om me because the first thing I will do with such a camera is to disable the video button, as I always do. The only think remaining from that list is IBIS.

I guess my question for you is.................... why should we take your opinions of what pros want/need over what Canon has shown in the bodies they sell?

It was a question.

jonpais has spoken extensively on what pros can do with 8K and the advantages it brings, and you ignored it all. So I'm not sure what your point is, other than to suggest 8K is pointless because you don't understand how to use it.

Again, I know what the benefits of the higher resolution are. I said that already. For video, that requires a lot of processing power though. The skepticism I am expressing is how much of that is actually needed.

Now, why not 16K? It is even better, right?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow